linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] crypto: lib/sha256

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201025201820.GA1237388@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:18:20 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Arvind Sankar' <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] crypto: lib/sha256 - Unroll LOAD and BLEND loops

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 06:51:18PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Arvind Sankar
> > Sent: 25 October 2020 14:31
> > 
> > Unrolling the LOAD and BLEND loops improves performance by ~8% on x86_64
> > (tested on Broadwell Xeon) while not increasing code size too much.
> 
> I can't believe unrolling the BLEND loop makes any difference.

It's actually the BLEND loop that accounts for almost all of the
difference. The LOAD loop doesn't matter much in general: even replacing
it with a plain memcpy() only increases performance by 3-4%. But
unrolling it is low cost in code size terms, and clang actually does it
without being asked.

> WRT patch 5.
> On the C2758 the original unrolled code is slightly faster.
> On the i7-7700 the 8 unroll is a bit faster 'hot cache',
> but slower 'cold cache' - probably because of the d-cache
> loads for K[].
> 
> Non-x86 architectures might need to use d-cache reads for
> the 32bit 'K' constants even in the unrolled loop.
> X86 can use 'lea' with a 32bit offset to avoid data reads.
> So the cold-cache case for the old code may be similar.

Not sure I follow: in the old code, the K's are 32-bit immediates, so
they should come from the i-cache whether an add or an lea is used?

Why is the cold-cache case relevant anyway? If the code is only being
executed a couple of times or so, i.e. you're hashing a single say
64-128 byte input once in a blue moon, the performance of the hash
doesn't really matter, no?

> 
> Interestingly I had to write an asm ror32() to get reasonable
> code (in userspace). The C version the kernel uses didn't work.
> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>